Slashdot Mirror


More Spacecraft Velocity Anomalies

ZonkerWilliam recommends a bulletin from the American Institute of Physics, which discusses a study noting that recent spacecraft, such as NEAR, appear to display velocity anomalies much like those seen in Pioneer 10 (which were observed beginning ten years ago). The anomalies amount to up to 13 mm/sec., with a measurement accuracy of 0.1 mm/sec. Quoting: "A new look at the trajectories for various spacecraft as they fly past the Earth finds in each case a tiny amount of surplus velocity. For craft that pursue a path mostly symmetrical with respect to the equator, the effect is minimal. For craft that pursue a more unsymmetrical path, the effect is larger."

339 comments

  1. spooky by superdana · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does anyone else feel like they just read the first console in an old Bungie game? We should probably be arming ourselves.

    1. Re:spooky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're already armed to the teeth.

    2. Re:spooky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, but the Pfhor have got an interstellar navy with plasma weapons, powered armor, transporters, and cybernetic slaves with more plasma weapons, not to mention the possibility of making our sun go nova.

    3. Re:spooky by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 1

      Ahh, shit, and I've just shut down the Vent Core for maintenance, and released the frogs. I do that *every* leap Friday!

      --
      If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
    4. Re:spooky by hcdejong · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, to be fair, there was no mention of "war was beginning", so we're probably safe.

    5. Re:spooky by jdigriz · · Score: 1

      Frog, Blast the vent core! They're Everywhere!

  2. Recheck that gague by yotto · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's actually 13 inches per hogshead, which is what they expected.

    No problems here.

  3. I'm sure it's the hamsters.. by splutty · · Score: 2, Funny

    They're getting sick and tired of these slow things and finally got out and started pushing.

    Must be it.

    Or possibly dark matter... ;)

    --
    Coz eternity my friend, is a long *ing time.
    1. Re:I'm sure it's the hamsters.. by sm62704 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hamsters? What hamsters? It's the mice and the dolphins.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    2. Re:I'm sure it's the hamsters.. by Hawthorne01 · · Score: 1

      I've got this feeling it might be the bunnies.

      --
      "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
    3. Re:I'm sure it's the hamsters.. by MBGMorden · · Score: 4, Funny

      You're very clever, young man, very clever, but it's turtles all the way down!

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    4. Re:I'm sure it's the hamsters.. by wereHamster · · Score: 1

      Don't underestimate hamsters.. especially wereHamsters!

    5. Re:I'm sure it's the hamsters.. by satherto · · Score: 1

      OMG it's the ponies !

      --
      ----
    6. Re:I'm sure it's the hamsters.. by whimmel · · Score: 1

      What do you think powers these "turtles"?

      --
      Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
    7. Re:I'm sure it's the hamsters.. by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Someone I once knew at K5 had that as her sig. Is your name Elaine by chance? (yes, I do understand the turtles, unlike the hamsters)

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  4. Hmmm..... by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Could this anomaly possibly be explained by dark matter?

    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:Hmmm..... by Yetihehe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or maybe by time running out of universe. If there is time running out, then everything would speed up (like expansion of universe and satellites).

      --
      Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
    2. Re:Hmmm..... by qmaqdk · · Score: 1

      IANAAP (astro physicist), but as far as I know dark matter only interacts via gravity. Gravity is conservative, so it would not produce a drag on the satellite; it would change the orbit.

      I'm think it's more something like atmospheric drag, but maybe they already accounted for this.

      --
      My UID is prime. Hah!
    3. Re:Hmmm..... by sm62704 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Could this anomaly possibly be explained by dark matter [blogspot.com]?

      Maybe, but I think it's more easily explained by dork matter.

      There is no dork side of the moon. As a matter of fact it's all dork.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    4. Re:Hmmm..... by drooling-dog · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or, there could be some more conventional gravitational source in the vicinity, one that hasn't yet been detected by other means. It doesn't take a hell of a lot to create an anomaly of that magnitude, and if an object were fairly massive it could still be quite far away.

    5. Re:Hmmm..... by Leperous · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unlikely. If "everything [were to] speed up" that would presumably include us, and hence we wouldn't be able to observe any difference. Plus, if this was happening, it should be more apparent faster moving objects, such as particles whizzing around particle accelerators at relativistic speeds - but it's not.

    6. Re:Hmmm..... by florescent_beige · · Score: 4, Informative

      According to this, the acceleration anomaly can't be accounted for by dark matter.

      --
      Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
    7. Re:Hmmm..... by blincoln · · Score: 1

      Could both this *and* dark [x] be explained by gravitons reaching our brane from other branes in the bulk?

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    8. Re:Hmmm..... by djupedal · · Score: 1

      More likely than not, they've simply missed when it comes to measuring detected gravities...remember, space is curved.

    9. Re:Hmmm..... by evilklown · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't atmospheric drag slow the objects down? The article states that there is a "surplus [of] velocity," so atmospheric drag would pretty much be eliminated as the culpret.

    10. Re:Hmmm..... by kestasjk · · Score: 4, Funny

      Lets postulate an entirely new field/form of matter/universe to explain this phenomenon!

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    11. Re:Hmmm..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

    12. Re:Hmmm..... by Magada · · Score: 1

      Maybe what they're measuring is the amount by which the Earth got fatter around the waist since they last looked?

      --
      Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
    13. Re:Hmmm..... by kvezach · · Score: 2, Informative

      How about MOND?

    14. Re:Hmmm..... by Yetihehe · · Score: 1

      I have even a catchy name: Aether

      --
      Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
    15. Re:Hmmm..... by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 1

      The issue isn't drag. The issue isa 'surplus' of velocity...something you would expect if the craft was heading towards an unseen gravity source.

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    16. Re:Hmmm..... by smackt4rd · · Score: 1

      or..... SATAN!

    17. Re:Hmmm..... by macslas'hole · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Earth does indeed gain mass continuously from in-falling space dust, captured solar wind, etc., and as a consequence of GR, our clocks should be getting slower over time relative to distant satellites. However, I would think that the effect is not sufficient to account for the observed velocity discrepancy. I am just a lowly programmer, but I would be very surprised if those physicists have not taken this into account or discounted this accordingly.

      --
      Life's a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
    18. Re:Hmmm..... by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Informative

      If such a source did exist, and was in fact the cause of the Pioneer anomaly - it wouldn't be be the Pioneer anomaly as we'd have seen it's effects on the outer planets decades ago. This goes 1x10^10 for NEAR which has barely left the inner solar system.

    19. Re:Hmmm..... by macslas'hole · · Score: 1

      I'm think it's more something like atmospheric drag, but maybe they already accounted for this.
      The satellites appear to gain velocity, so wouldn't that be atmospheric anti-drag.
      --
      Life's a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
    20. Re:Hmmm..... by macslas'hole · · Score: 3, Interesting

      we'd have seen it's effects on the outer planets decades ago
      Perhaps not. According to the summary and the article, the effect dies down the closer you get to the ecliptic plane (i.e. where the planets are).

      One could imagine that the local dark matter field (or whatever) has been swept up, in the ecliptic, by the sun and the planets.</handwave>
      --
      Life's a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
    21. Re:Hmmm..... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      How about MOND? I prefer the Special Orbital Non-Newtonian Effect, short SONNE. :-)

      SCNR

      (Note for those who don't know German: Mond is German for moon, Sonne is German for sun).
      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    22. Re:Hmmm..... by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 5, Informative

      I can't speak to this specific case, but someone did a study several years ago of the Voyager anomaly and whether it could be a gravitational effect. The gist of the analysis was the if it were gravitational, it would also affect the distribution of long-period comets, especially the "new" ones from the Oort cloud. They calculated the effect you'd expect and it's much too large relative to what we see in the comets, so whatever is affecting Voyager pretty much cannot be gravitational in nature.

      It's also worth noting that even in the mega-analysis by Anderson et al. concluded that although they couldn't determine a source for the anomaly, they still generally felt that it was more likely to be endogenic than exogenic.

    23. Re:Hmmm..... by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      It doesn't take a hell of a lot to create an anomaly of that magnitude

      I wish there were a word minitude, which seems more appropriate here.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    24. Re:Hmmm..... by Majik+Sheff · · Score: 1

      I've seen it in use. Reminds me of pessimum.

      --
      Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
    25. Re:Hmmm..... by Magada · · Score: 1

      I was thinking more along the lines of "deforming faster than expected because of centrifugal force, thus causing 'local' gravitational anomalies"

      --
      Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
    26. Re:Hmmm..... by Bellum+Aeternus · · Score: 1

      Or, there could be some more conventional gravitational source in the vicinity[...]

      Like the moon?

      --
      - I voted for Nintendo and against Bush
    27. Re:Hmmm..... by Teancum · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One thing you must remember is that this is being published in scientific journals, not just some back page of your local newspaper. If there is one thing scientists do like to perform, is showing that somebody else missed a basic calculation on their raw data like you are suggesting. This is called "peer review", and very common in scientific journals... even if it is more informal than an organized panel. That is in fact why results like this are published in journals like this, so these kind of mistakes can be vetted.

      Or more to the point, if you want to make a name for yourself, look through the raw data, perform the calculations yourself, and show what mistake somebody with a PhD did with this sort of data. Many graduate students have indeed gained notice when they have performed exactly these sort of calculations.

      Have fun! Seriously, I mean it!

    28. Re:Hmmm..... by Mard · · Score: 1

      Random out-the-ass idea, but being that most of these flight paths use the gravity of planets (ours and others) to sling them for fuel-free acceleration, is it possible that we've incorrectly measured the mass of a planet (or planets), or perhaps they have changed since the time they were measured for use in their calculations? A more massive planet would give a bigger gravity assist, would it not?

      --
      DRM = Digitally Restricted Media. This is a viral sig, pass it on.
    29. Re:Hmmm..... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Gravity doesn't work like that. If it is affecting the satellites, it will affect the planets as well. Period.

    30. Re:Hmmm..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If "everything [were to] speed up" that would presumably include us, and hence we wouldn't be able to observe any difference
      Speak for yourself. I'm going to accelerate to the speed of light just to make sure that my time doesn't speed up -- if I can get going fast enough, it'll stop. Then I'll still be able to measure the fact that your velocity is increasing, sucker.
    31. Re:Hmmm..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Having little or no knowledge of inner workings of Theory of Gravity or relativity, could this be explained with a simple "duh" type explanation.

      Is it possible that the side facing the sun heats up and eject tiny amounts of what ever this craft is made off, this in turn propels it faster!

      PS: I am a anonymous coward when posting a solution to something folks at NASA can't figure out.

    32. Re:Hmmm..... by gnuman99 · · Score: 1

      As TFA says (or the one I read says), the spacecraft that are in the elliptic plane are not affected. The further from the plane the spacecraft diverges, the greater the effect. That is very interesting if true.

    33. Re:Hmmm..... by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      Er, re-reading my post I just noticed that I should have said "Pioneer" rather than "Voyager". Apologies for any confusion.

    34. Re:Hmmm..... by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think that the Pioneer anomaly runs the other way. In any case, the Anderson et al. mega-paper tried to factor in pretty much every effect that they could concoct, include solar radiation, thermal radiation from the spacecraft, etc. It was an impressive bit of work to reach the conclusion, "still scratching our heads." (Not to belittle it. There's considerable value in papers that say, "This doesn't work," although this fact is often overlooked in science.)

    35. Re:Hmmm..... by florescent_beige · · Score: 1

      You can calculate the mass of a body by timing the orbital period of it's satelites, something which is very easy to do. There must be very accurate values for the solar and planetary masses.

      One thing I thought of is the assumption in orbital mechanics that the mass of a spherical body can be replaced by a point mass at the geometric center of the sphere.

      That is only exact for perfect spheres. We know that the Earth is slightly oblate. I wonder if that sort of distortion is enough to cause the observed anomalies.

      --
      Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
    36. Re:Hmmm..... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      the planet are in the ecliptic plane, so the dark matter would be swept up there; that why the effect increases as the craft leave the plane.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    37. Re:Hmmm..... by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1

      Gravity doesn't work like that.

      That sir is *exactly* the point. Observed measurements are at odds with our model. There is no "period" at this point, but rather an exclamation point. Paradox and inconsistency are not to be feared, they are just the flags raised when something worthy is noticed.

    38. Re:Hmmm..... by DerekLyons · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Gravity doesn't work like that. If it is affecting the satellites, it will affect the planets as well. Period.

    39. Re:Hmmm..... by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1

      Someone needs to launch a series of spheres of various materials (ferrous and several nonferrous,) and see if the effect is merely related to mass. Be a kick in the ass if turns out to be related to volume instead.

    40. Re:Hmmm..... by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, there is a 'period' at that point. Gravity doesn't work like that. Period. If there were gravity effects at work, we'd see them on the planets. Period. If there were inconsistencies and paradoxes in how gravity work, we'd have long since observed it. Period.

    41. Re:Hmmm..... by drooling-dog · · Score: 1

      If such a source did exist, and was in fact the cause of the Pioneer anomaly - it wouldn't be be the Pioneer anomaly as we'd have seen it's effects on the outer planets decades ago. That's true... I run a lot of n-body simulations just for fun, and one of the striking things that you learn by doing that is how disruptive a new body is as it approaches a system. Planets get knocked into radically different orbits very, very quickly. That's one reason not to worry about the sun going supernova; the odds are much greater that the earth will be knocked out of its life-friendly orbit by some invading body long before that happens. There must be a lot of relatively big stuff flying around interstellar space at very high speeds, because it's easy for stuff to get violently flung out of unstable gravitational systems.

      But you're right: If it's affecting a spacecraft, we should also see it affecting other objects in the solar system...
    42. Re:Hmmm..... by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      Uh oh! Better start hoarding bottled time now!

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    43. Re:Hmmm..... by PachmanP · · Score: 1

      Besides the fact that there are instances where the effects are not observed( when the orbit is symmetrical with respect to the equator), it seems you forget how science works. Observe->model-> refine observation->see anomaly-> refine model->rinse->repeat

      --
      You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
    44. Re:Hmmm..... by Keys1337 · · Score: 1

      I think you just like saying Period. more than thinking about the issue. The fact is that we are observing the problems with gravity that you seem to want to ignore. Since it seems that you have a bias toward planetary data, perhaps you will consider the unexplained increase of the AU of about 7-10m/century.

    45. Re:Hmmm..... by The_Wilschon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      it's easy for stuff to get violently flung out of unstable gravitational systems. Just want to make sure: are you certain that you are not mistaking error in simulation (which gets absolutely huge when the bodies are very close to one another) for a real effect? Or, as a subset of that question, does this effect you are talking about conserve energy, momentum, and angular momentum?

      I've seen lots of for-fun gravity sims in which things do get flung around violently, but in most cases only due to error introduced by making necessary approximations (and/or failing to compensate well for them).
      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    46. Re:Hmmm..... by Kagura · · Score: 1

      Which programs do you use to run your n-body simulations for fun? I hope you see this and reply back... :)

    47. Re:Hmmm..... by GryMor · · Score: 1

      Are you sure they would exist? Consider for a moment a distribution of mass such that it's impacts within the ecliptic cancel out (in the same way that a spherical shell's gravity can be neglected within the shell and treated as a point mass at the center of the shell when outside of the shell), but that causes the discrepancies we are observing outside of ecliptic. Are you CERTAIN such a distribution of a mass can't exist?

      --
      Realities just a bunch of bits.
    48. Re:Hmmm..... by mdenham · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How do you measure anything when time's stopped for you? Wouldn't the act of measurement require time to pass for you?

    49. Re:Hmmm..... by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      Picky note: You can only gauge the mass of an orbiting body relative to the mass of the primary, which you can estimate to a VERY accurate amount, as you say, but only as a coefficient of the mass of the primary. Thus we have an extremely accurate estimate of what the mass of the moon is, based on our knowledge of the mass of the Earth, and our knowledge of the mass of the Earth can only be estimated empirically, but can be measured very accurately with regard to the mass of the Sun. Our ability to turn orbital observations into mass is limited by our knowledge of the Gravitational constant, which we don't have an extremely accurate estimate of.

      It's possible that if objects are accelerating away from the Solar system faster than we expect, we've underestimated the total mass of the solar system, since our estimates are based on the empirical knowledge of the mass of the spacecraft (we know how much they mass in kilos much better than we know how much the Earth or Sun masses in kilos).

      Maybe, idunno, not my field of expertise.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    50. Re:Hmmm..... by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, I haven't forgotten how science works. We've been observing gravity for centuries - we have a highly refined model tested and proven and tested and proven again. For this to be an effect of gravity doesn't mean refining the model - it means tearing it down all the way back to Newton and Galileo.

      But understanding that requires not being scientifically illiterate.

    51. Re:Hmmm..... by DerekLyons · · Score: 0, Troll

      No, I've just grown tired of trying to explain science to the scientific illiterates that populate Slashdot. Someone literate in science would know that the AU is an approximation - not a precise value. Someone literate in science would know that 7-10 meters is about a third of the current error known to exist in the approximation of the AU.

    52. Re:Hmmm..... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      111% percent certain - because gravity doesn't work like that. At a bare minimum, numerous asteroids as well as Pluto and multiple comets, go considerably above and below the ecliptic - we'd see the variations in their orbit if such a distribution of mass was present. We don't see any such variations.

    53. Re:Hmmm..... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      The effect on the planets would be symmetrical and therefore cancel out, the "extra" pull on the north pole cancels the extra pull on the south. The satellites would be traveling from south to north, so the effect would be asymmetrical.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    54. Re:Hmmm..... by Keys1337 · · Score: 1

      So you are not disputing that the AU is increasing, just that the current AU is only known to a certain accuracy? Anyone literate in science would know you can measure an object approaching or receding without knowing the precise distance that the object is from the observer.

    55. Re:Hmmm..... by Paperweight · · Score: 1

      Just slap it on the Standard Model and we're done!

    56. Re:Hmmm..... by coastwalker · · Score: 1

      Ah good. I'm looking for an expert to explain to me why the solar system is a pancake with all the planets lined up along the ecliptic and why galaxies are flat discs. Also why elliptical galaxies result from the collision of spiral ones.

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
    57. Re:Hmmm..... by drooling-dog · · Score: 1

      One I've written (C++, gtkmm, Linux), primarily for amusement and to satisfy my own curiosity. It's pretty on the screen, but one of the key features is the attachment of probes to specified bodies to collect data (velocity, acceleration, distance to other bodies) for subsequent presentation analysis. That's not much of a reference, is it?

    58. Re:Hmmm..... by drooling-dog · · Score: 1

      Just want to make sure: are you certain that you are not mistaking error in simulation (which gets absolutely huge when the bodies are very close to one another) for a real effect? That's a good point. The "bodies" are point masses, and the accelerations they are subjected to at close proximity would probably rip apart a real 3-dimensional object. Numerical integration errors are certainly a big issue as well, especially when bodies are very near each other. Discrete (but variable) timesteps are used with no effort to interpolate properly between them. But then, it was never my aim to simulate real celestial mechanics in a precise and comprehensive way; there's little physics there beyond Newton's law of gravitation and f=ma.

      Or, as a subset of that question, does this effect you are talking about conserve energy, momentum, and angular momentum? Momentum is conserved, and bodies in stable orbits obey Kepler's laws, but that's as much as I've tried to verify. I'm a sunday afternoon celestial mechanic at best, and probably overdrew my inference from a simple model...
    59. Re:Hmmm..... by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1

      There are times to refine a model, and times to extend it. Tearing it down is exciting. Think Quantum Mechanics, or Relativity. Both turned Physics upside down and inside out (as likewise did Godel's Incompleteness Theorem for the field of Mathematics).

  5. I should work for NASA, the answer is obvious... by clonan · · Score: 1

    This is ALIENS messing with us as a cosmic joke....

  6. I mean... by mhore · · Score: 1
    Not to be a grammar nazi and all... but "unsymmetrical"..? Really? I thought it was asymmetrical. But maybe I'm just weird and confused and grumpy.

    M.

    --

    Mmmm......sacrelicious.

    1. Re:I mean... by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Ewe muss bee knew hear! If you cross unsymmetrical with asymmetrical do you get analsymetrical?

      At least he didn't mention two "looser asymmetrical's". Then he'd have had me Godwining on his ass.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    2. Re:I mean... by bondjamesbond · · Score: 0

      Analsymetrical == gaysymetrical ??

      Not that there's anything wrong with that...

    3. Re:I mean... by reverseengineer · · Score: 3, Informative
      Both "asymmetric" and "unsymmetric" are in accepted use, though "a" is a lot more common than "un," particularly in math and physics (so yes, "asymmetric" would probably be more common to describe a spacecraft trajectory).

      Chemists use "un" to describe non-symmetric molecules pretty often- consider the rocket fuel UDMH: unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine, though chemical reactions lacking symmetry are more often called "asymmetric," like the Sharpless asymmetric epoxidation. Asymmetric reactions can sometimes produce unsymmetrical products. Yes, it is unpossibly confusing. Just make sure to not confuse either "asymmetric" or "unsymmetric" with "antisymmetric."

      --
      "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
    4. Re:I mean... by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 5, Funny

      Antisymmetric is when you hate Jews right?

    5. Re:I mean... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      And yet the standard nomenclature would have us write 1,1-dimethylhydrazine, which is more precise and less likely to be confused. Then, instead of being confused by a|un|anti, everyone knows exactly what is being referred to...

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    6. Re:I mean... by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Antisymmetric is when you hate Jews and they don't hate you for it.

      --
    7. Re:I mean... by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      The girls in my whorem tell me that a lot of guys want them to take it up the ass. I say that anybody who wants to put it in the back door is gay, but they disagree. Personally, I wouldn't put my dick anywhere I wouldn't put my tongue.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    8. Re:I mean... by bondjamesbond · · Score: 0

      Right. Exit only.

  7. Good excuse by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm sorry officer; I was experiencing a velocity anomaly.

    1. Re:Good excuse by sm62704 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm sorry officer; I was experiencing a velocity anomaly.

      That's too bad, son, I'm still writing you a ticket. From now on keep it under 299,792,458 meters per second. The law is the law!

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    2. Re:Good excuse by kenj0418 · · Score: 1

      The police must be pretty harsh in your area if they are handing out tickets for going 0.03 mph (0.05 km/h) over the limit.

    3. Re:Good excuse by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1

      They've got to meet their quotas somehow.

    4. Re:Good excuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can go here, and do an on-line course to prevent points from being added to your record. Or you can go to the court in this jurisdiction and ask the judge to consider your arguments.

  8. Re:I should work for NASA, the answer is obvious.. by anonieuweling · · Score: 2

    Dark matter?

  9. An appropos quote by jandrese · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Someone once said: The most profound scientific discoveries never begin with EUREKA! Usually they start with the words "now that's odd..."

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
    1. Re:An appropos quote by AndroidCat · · Score: 5, Funny

      I thought it was "Here, hold my beer."

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    2. Re:An appropos quote by Pope · · Score: 1

      That only works for hardware, usually electrical.

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    3. Re:An appropos quote by ZaMoose · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, no, that's the way we get Darwin Award nominees.

      --
      I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
    4. Re:An appropos quote by tppublic · · Score: 4, Informative
      I believe you're referring to: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but rather, 'That's funny...'"-Isaac Asimov

      Occasionally this is also quoted as ending with 'Hmm, that's funny'.

    5. Re:An appropos quote by kiick · · Score: 1

      "Someone" I believe is Isaac Asimov.

      And the truth is it's not "that's odd" but usually "What the....?"

    6. Re:An appropos quote by KublaiKhan · · Score: 1

      Or "Wait, that can't be right..."

      I think it's the Power of the Ellipsis. That whole trailing off into three dots thing...

      --
      In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
      A stately pleasure dome decree
    7. Re:An appropos quote by hitmark · · Score: 1

      i thought that was "that would be a cool thing to do..."

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    8. Re:An appropos quote by Eukariote · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I wish, though, that that were more true than it actually is in science. Quite a few anomalies are being ignored because resolving them would challenge "sacred" theories.

      Anyone familiar with modern physics should be appalled by its complexity, confused by the many correction and perturbation factors, and amazed at the many weird theories propounded in all sincerity to explain observations in terms of "established theories". Anomalies are the rule rather than the exception, and the amount of data which just won't fit is colossal. All in all it is fairly obvious the mainstream view of the Universe is bogging down and we are in reality conjuring up a mathematical monstrosity and raising it to Deity status. It is truly the modern Golden Calf.

    9. Re:An appropos quote by jandrese · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's probably right. I only vaguely remembered the quote and did a Google search for it, but only turned up the version I posted.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    10. Re:An appropos quote by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1

      Let's just go back to Plato - every time there's another anomaly, just chuck another epicycle in :P

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    11. Re:An appropos quote by MBGMorden · · Score: 4, Funny

      There's an old redneck joke in there somewhere. Something like 50% of deaths by rednecks are immediately preceded by "Hey ya'll, watch this!".

      Having grown up around (and most people would probably say as) rednecks, there's some weird level of truth to that. Who else can say that they know a guy paralyzed from the neck down from trying to steal a riding lawn mower from Wal-mart by using an extension cord to tie it to the back of his buddies pickup, and then trying to drive/be towed on the lawnmower down the road at 60+ mph. Lets just say he lost control a few miles down the road . . .

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    12. Re:An appropos quote by orclevegam · · Score: 2, Funny

      i thought that was "that would be a cool thing to do..." No, it's "Hey, watch this!"
      --
      Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
    13. Re:An appropos quote by hitmark · · Score: 1

      i suspect those two are very related...

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    14. Re:An appropos quote by camperdave · · Score: 4, Funny

      Some would say he lost control long before he ever got on the lawnmower.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    15. Re:An appropos quote by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Ah the familiar refrain of the crackpot. I love the Internet. It sounds nice when you're all "those mean scientists won't even listen to me", but not so nice when you're talking about your n-dimensional timecube.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    16. Re:An appropos quote by Cerebus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Miller's Corollary to Asimov's Law: "Great discoveries in computer security are usually preceded by 'This can't possibly work.'"

      --
      -- Cerebus
    17. Re:An appropos quote by Killer+Instinct · · Score: 1

      I thought it was "Here, hold my beer."

      Linus? Is that you?

      --
      #include bier;
    18. Re:An appropos quote by deroby · · Score: 1

      ... "Lets just say he lost control a few miles down the road"

      My new hero !!

      --
      If there is one thing to be learned on slashdot, it has to be sarcasm.
    19. Re:An appropos quote by Eukariote · · Score: 1

      "those mean scientists won't even listen to me"

      I am a scientist buddy. PhD and all. But I am in science because I'd like to understand how nature works. Some of my colleagues, on the other hand, are happy to go where fashion, funding or peer pressure takes them. Half of theoretical physics has been herded into string theory that way. Sad.

    20. Re:An appropos quote by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      That's Ptolemy, not Plato. Plato wasn't interested enough in astronomy to come up with epicycles.

    21. Re:An appropos quote by jandrese · · Score: 1

      As I understand it string theory proponents in general are getting disillusioned with the whole thing, but nothing better has come along to replace it yet. None of the alternative theories have panned out yet, and there is experimental evidence to support string theory.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    22. Re:An appropos quote by Eukariote · · Score: 1

      and there is experimental evidence to support string theory.

      Oh? I am not aware of any experimental predictions uniquely made by string theory that have been borne out by experiment. String theorists themselves hardly even know how to use it to calculate stuff. The situation is so bad that in the rare instance where they actually do manage to calculate something, they are elated.

      For example, several years ago string theorists were all happy about having been able to calculate the entropy of a black hole. Cool. But note that that is not something that can be verified experimentally. The "success" was merely that it matched a theoretical prediction obtained via an alternate theory.

    23. Re:An appropos quote by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      I'm familiar with modern physics, and I'm also familiar with modern physicists (particularly since I am one). Nobody thinks that the current situation is really a good one, but it gets predictions made and verified, and nobody has yet come up with anything unequivocally better. Certainly nobody regards current theories as "sacred". Sorry to burst your anti-establishment bubble, but it just ain't so. So unless you've got something better (in which case I would very much like to see it. That would be quite exciting, if it really is better and works.), I'd ask you to shut your trap. Fish or cut bait. Whining about string theory and the standard model doesn't really help anyone do anything, except for make you sound like a crackpot. Especially when your complaints about string theory (in another comment) reveal that you don't quite fully understand the situation there. I don't much care for string theory myself, but your arguments against it just don't hold much water.

      BTW, you mentioned a PhD. What is it in? What research did you do (for the PhD), and what research are you doing now? Your nick suggests that you are perhaps a biologist, which would make me wonder what relationship you think a PhD in biology has to your ability to discern, evaluate, and comment on the state of modern physics.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    24. Re:An appropos quote by David+Gould · · Score: 1

      The sounds of scientific discovery:
      Eureka!
      Huh. That's funny.
      Oh, crap!

      --
      David Gould
      main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
    25. Re:An appropos quote by Eukariote · · Score: 1

      Certainly nobody regards current theories as "sacred". Sorry to burst your anti-establishment bubble, but it just ain't so.

      You are ill-informed. Quite a number of scientists have been persecuted (funding pulled, career destroyed, ridicule, the works) for challenging "sacred" theories. In particular those that have challenged relativity (believe it or not, it has been experimentally falsified) or the big-bang model of cosmology (a ludicrous patchwork of band-aids that even so still fails to match observation).

      Examples of heretics are Dayton Miller and Halton Arp. Look them up, skip past the ridicule and character assassination and read their actual work. It is solid science, but it was not to the liking of the inquisition.

      BTW, you mentioned a PhD. What is it in? What research did you do (for the PhD), and what research are you doing now?

      Experimental physics. Heated reaction cells for infrared spectroscopy. I currently research helium/hydrogen plasmas using EUV spectroscopy to elucidate states of atomic hydrogen that are not predicted by quantum mechanics.

      So unless you've got something better (in which case I would very much like to see it. That would be quite exciting, if it really is better and works.)

      For a start, have a look at the following experiments http://www.epjap.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/epjap/abs/2004/08/ap03047/ap03047.html http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0509/0509127.pdf. As a skeptical experimentalist, I will refrain from recommending theories.

    26. Re:An appropos quote by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      Well, Halton Arp still seems to have a fine career, at the Max Planck Institute. He is still publishing papers expounding upon his theories, although as a skeptical experimentalist, you ought to be pushing for him to abandon his theories, since they don't agree with observational evidence that has arisen since he first developed them.

      Dayton Miller died in 1941, so I would hardly consider his case relevant to a discussion of the state of modern physics. However, the interpretation of his (fine, AFAICT) experimental results as a statistical anomaly is hardly character assassination or ridicule. In fact, statistical anomalies are expected, and it would itself be an anomaly if we didn't find any.

      Yes, these men did fine work, good science. However, later experiment and observation provided more data (of course) and with this data, we can calculate increasingly small likelihoods for their theories, in comparison to increasingly large likelihoods for competing theories. This is also good science.

      It is good that you refrain from recommending theories, since AFAICT at a quick glance, Mills' theories are inconsistent and do not even predict these hydrino states! Furthermore, Mills' book is well-known to be full of plagiarism. This is very poor conduct for a scientist indeed! Anyone who tries to pass off the scientific work of others as their own absolutely deserves character assassination! So until other scientists start investigating his theories (this is not my field, so I will not likely be one of them), I think that I will dismiss them summarily. Perhaps that is unscientific (and perhaps not), but extremely stiff penalties for academic misconduct are an absolute necessity if academia is to continue to be capable of producing good scientific results.

      Furthermore, the results of the experiments you cite must also be called into some question, given that a) one of them was done by Mills, and b) the other one spends a great deal of time propounding Mills' theory. Both of these strongly suggest experimenter bias, which can easily lead to the experimenter effect and skew results. Furthermore, the paper on the arXiv spends a significant amount of time talking about the role of experimental physics, as if the reader needed reminding or convincing. This also sends up a lot of red flags in my mind. Talk to me again when there are experiments along these lines done by people without a vested interest in a particular theory (such as, perhaps, yourself?).

      By the way, did you read the crackpot index I linked to previously? You earned quite a few more points in this last post...

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    27. Re:An appropos quote by Eukariote · · Score: 1

      Well, Halton Arp still seems to have a fine career, at the Max Planck Institute.

      I suggest you read up on how he was forced into exile by pulling his observation time. Him ending up in Germany was not because he was intent on leaving the US. It was about finding some place where he'd still be allowed to continue his research.

      Dayton Miller died in 1941, so I would hardly consider his case relevant to a discussion of the state of modern physics.

      Why? His observations stand and are at odds with the constant-lightspeed postulate. And the same goes for a number of later experiments by others. Of course, claims have been made that the non-null aspect of his experiments are because of experimental error and hence are actually consistent with zero lightspeed variation. But then, others have reanalyzed his data and found it consistent: http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0311054

      Mills' theories are inconsistent and do not even predict these hydrino states!

      That is why refrained from recommending any theory. The states (which are simply an extension of the Rydberg series) are clearly there in the EUV data I have (at least for the first few fractional states 1/2, 1/3, and 1/4), as well in data by others, but I have not yet seen a convincing theory for them. But then, nature does not need a theory to do what it does.

      Getting back to anomalies, the original subject of this thread, it is interesting to point out the anomalously high solar corona temperature (over a million Kelvin). Note that the corona includes atomic hydrogen and singly ionized helium, and as such meets the conditions for catalysis of fractional states. That explains why it can be so hot: the energy to heat it is generated within the corona itself. Observations consistent with this explanation have been done: the solar wind is strongly dependent on the fraction of Helium present in the flux.

      By the way, did you read the crackpot index I linked to previously?

      Yes, I have read it. If you think me scoring high on it somehow refutes my arguments, I'd like to point out that I have consistently come down on the side of experiment and observation. And nature, not theory, is primary in the scientific method. Experiment and observation should be the final judge. When theory is defended in the face of falsifying data, we are talking religion, not science. So, what are you, a scientist or a believer?

    28. Re:An appropos quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      aka WTF?!

    29. Re:An appropos quote by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      Singling out individual experiments, and clinging to their anomalous results in the face of immense amounts of more precise data with more statistics is the mark of a fool, not a scientist. You have consistently come down on the side of a few experiments, and utterly ignored all others.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    30. Re:An appropos quote by Eukariote · · Score: 1

      You have consistently come down on the side of a few experiments, and utterly ignored all others.

      Obviously, it has taken rather more for me to start to doubt what I was taught. It began with some first hand experience of surpression. Not too surprising, if you consider the implications of my line of research. That made me question whether in other branches of physics something similar might be going on. So I asked around and it was pointed out to me that there were quite a few claims about surpression of lightspeed experiments and data falsification. This one, for example http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_6.html#SEC6.

      Given this context, it is imprudent to rely on an "immense amount of more precise data" type argument.

  10. well duh by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Funny

    gravitons display a bias for polar rather than equatorial output. this was the basis for the graviton engine that first bought man...

    oh shit, forgot what time line was in, you guys aren't supposed to discover this until 2039. dang it, screwed up again. i'll have to shut this time line down...

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:well duh by Shinmizu · · Score: 1

      Hey, while you're here, could you tell me the recipe for making transparent aluminum?

    2. Re:well duh by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      dang it, screwed up again. i'll have to shut this time line down...

      2o]uEO%NO CARRIER

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    3. Re:well duh by IdeaMan · · Score: 1

      Wikipedia has several close matches that are currently available. Fused aluminum oxide is pretty close.
      Fighter jets occasionally use sapphire windows. The Joint Strike Fighter uses one for instance.

      --
      They ARE out to get you simply because They are in it for themselves and they don't care about you.
  11. Message from your gods by rbarreira · · Score: 5, Funny

    We're sorry about the bugs you've been observing lately. The latest anomalies are due to bug #14310, a hardware glitch much like those present in your own Pentium processors.

    We're trying as hard as we can to mitigate this issue, primarily by avoiding the use of floating point calculations in our physics engine. In the meantime, we're manually changing your physics books so that you'll be able to calculate the ship's movement correctly. In one day, you'll have no memory that this incident ever happened, so do not worry.

    --

    The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
    1. Re:Message from your gods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fixed in [20080230].

    2. Re:Message from your gods by KZigurs · · Score: 1

      Is it a show-stopper? What % of users it potentially affects?

      Ship!

  12. Another force by arth1 · · Score: 0

    I think there might be a third alternative to the two prevalent explanations of either the theory of gravity being wrong, or there being "dark matter".
    My guess is that there is a force somewhat like gravity, but much weaker, that acts on energy or the speed of light just as gravity works on mass. It doesn't make logical sense that when mass converts to energy, the gravitational force disappears. My speculation is that it becomes converted too -- to a different force. Possibly one with a first order (linear) attraction instead of the second order attraction of gravity, which would explain why the discrepancy appears to be larger the farther away an object is from a gravity well.

    Of course, I am likely wrong, but I do believe that someone soon will find the correct answer.

    1. Re:Another force by KublaiKhan · · Score: 1

      Yes, because gravity acts on energy as well as mass.

      That is, after all, the principle behind things like gravitational lensing.

      --
      In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
      A stately pleasure dome decree
    2. Re:Another force by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Obviously, but only because light has a particle state. The wavelength (energy) of it doesn't enter the equation at all.

    3. Re:Another force by Desperado · · Score: 1

      Or....light (photons) have mass and therefore are acted upon by gravity which would pretty much explain gravitational lensing.

      --
      If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
    4. Re:Another force by spun · · Score: 1

      Are you sure about that? because I'm pretty sure that energy does enter into the equation. You know, E=MC2? Matter is energy, and vice versa, and gravity acts on both the same because they are the same. I could be wrong though.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    5. Re:Another force by KublaiKhan · · Score: 1

      Wavelength is frequency. Amplitude--wave height--is energy.

      And light does not have a 'particle state'--it can be modeled as a particle, sure, but it really isn't.

      And really, it's not so much the light being 'bent' anyway, but the space that the light travels through.

      It is, however, known that sufficient quantities of concentrated energy are capable of generating gravitational influence; it's hypothesized that energy was the chief source of gravitational influence during the first short bit of time after the big bang.

      --
      In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
      A stately pleasure dome decree
    6. Re:Another force by hitmark · · Score: 1

      and thats the basis for star trek style warp drives.

      now to find a energy source thats abundant, easy to get at, and renewable...

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    7. Re:Another force by zippthorne · · Score: 2, Informative

      no. That is wrong. The "particle" part of "wave-particle duality" does not refer to a separate state. Further, it doesn't have mass, either.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    8. Re:Another force by Rampantbaboon · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wavelength is frequency. Amplitude--wave height--is energy.

      And light does not have a 'particle state'--it can be modeled as a particle, sure, but it really isn't. Light waves do not have "amplitude". And it is a particle and a wave at the same time, as are you. The concept is hard to get around at first. Either way, it can certainly be quantized and a single photon has a finite amount of energy based solely on it's frequency. The intensity is the sum of the total energies of the individual photons. If this were not the case, a lot of spectroscopy would be bunk.
    9. Re:Another force by KublaiKhan · · Score: 1

      For individual quanta, yes. My apologies for not making clear that I was not addressing single instances but more collective quantities. I was thinking on a different scale--the one used to measure the satellite's velocity--rather than the one you're referencing.

      I'll come back when I've finished my coffee.

      --
      In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
      A stately pleasure dome decree
    10. Re:Another force by arth1 · · Score: 1

      A photon doesn't have a measurable rest mass, because it per definition can never do anything but travel at c. It does carry momentum (the basis for solar sails), which you can't have without mass.

    11. Re:Another force by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      So, what's you're point? F=GMm/r^2 doesn't work on momentum, it works on mass. Gravity does not affect light as a force, so there's no point in using a classical definition of gravity to predict gravitational lensing.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    12. Re:Another force by Bloodoflethe · · Score: 1

      Ted Huntington, is that you?

      All waves have an amplitude. Here is a simple site for illustration.

      I'm not an expert on electro-magnetic radiation propagation, but iirc when light propagates, each pulse contains two waves traveling orthogonally. The lead or lag of one of these fields is the result of polarization mode dispersion in optical fiber.

      --
      "Little is much when little you need."
    13. Re:Another force by Ken_g6 · · Score: 1

      Another force, maybe, but it has to act preferentially at or near the poles.

      Do you suppose there's any iron in them that was more strongly attracted by a third-order dipole force to the magnetic poles?

      --
      (T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
    14. Re:Another force by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1
      Both Theory

      In physics, light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation of a certain wavelength originating from a source placed in a region of stronger gravitational field (and which could be said to have climbed "uphill" out of a gravity well) will be found to be of longer wavelength when received by an observer in a region of weaker gravitational field. If applied to optical wave-lengths this manifests itself as a change in the colour of the light as the wavelength is shifted toward the red (making it: less energetic,longer in wavelength, and lower in frequency) part of the spectrum. This effect is called gravitational redshift and other spectral lines found in the light will also be shifted towards the longer wavelength, or "red," end of the spectrum. This shift can be observed along the entire electromagnetic spectrum.
      Light that has passed "downhill" into a region of stronger gravity shows a corresponding increase in energy, and is said to be gravitationally blueshifted.
      and Practice: Pound-Rebka experiment

      Proposed by R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka Jr. in 1959,[1] and was the last of the classical tests of general relativity to be verified (in the same year). It is a gravitational redshift experiment, which measures the redshift of light moving in a gravitational field, or, equivalently, a test of the general relativity prediction that clocks should run at different rates at different places in a gravitational field. It is considered to be the experiment that ushered in an era of precision tests of general relativity.
      disagree.

      Note on Theory vs Practice: "While gravitational redshift refers to what is seen, gravitational time dilation refers to what is deduced to be "really" happening once observational effects are taken into account."
    15. Re:Another force by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1
      Answer:

      The use of words can make a lot of confusion. Unfortunately, the word "mass" has been used in two different ways in physics. One was the way Einstein used it in E=mc^2, where mass is really just the same thing as energy but measured in different units. This is the same "m" that you multiply velocity by to find momentum. It's also the mass that provides the source of gravitational effects. Light has this "m" because it has energy (E) and momentum (p). So it is indeed affected by gravity- not just in black holes but in all sorts of less extreme situations too. In fact, the first important confirmation of General Relativity came in 1919, when it was found that light from stars bends as it goes by the Sun.

      The other way "mass" is often used, especially in recent years, is to mean "rest mass" or "invariant mass", which is sqrt(E^2-p^2*c^2)/c^2. This is invariant because it doesn't change when you describe an object at rest or from the point of view of someone who says it's moving. Obviously that's a good type of "mass" to give when you want to make a list of masses of particles. For light, E=pc, so this "m" is zero. There is no point of view from which the light is standing still!
      Mike
      Thanks, Mike!
    16. Re:Another force by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1
      Just to confuse the uninitiated, lets consider the difference between free and bound light:

      However, if light is trapped in a box with perfect mirrors so the photons are continually reflected back and forth in both directions symmetrically in the box, then the total momentum is zero in the box's frame of reference but the energy is not. Therefore the light adds a small contribution to the mass of the box. This could be measured--in principle at least--either by the greater force required to accelerate the box, or by an increase in its gravitational pull.
      ;-)
    17. Re:Another force by arth1 · · Score: 1

      So, what's you're point? F=GMm/r^2 doesn't work on momentum, it works on mass. Gravity does not affect light as a force, [...]

      That gravity does not affect light as a force was my point. Perhaps there is a force that does, related to (but not like) gravity.
    18. Re:Another force by arth1 · · Score: 1

      ICBW, but the way I see redshift is just confirming that gravity acts on the particle form of light -- if it acted based on the energy of the light, the amount of redshift would vary depending on the wavelength. Subjected to the same well, blue would be shifted more towards red than yellow would be.
      In other words, as I read it, the energy shifting is the effect of the gravity pull on the quark. Not the cause.

    19. Re:Another force by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1

      if it acted based on the energy of the light, the amount of redshift would vary depending on the wavelength
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift
      The change in wavelength is dependent of the delta potential due to the gravity field. The shift is independent of where you start, it is a change in energy. Using money as an example, if your delta cash is $5, then it doesn't matter if you start at $100 or $1000, you get $5 *less*. It makes no sense to suggest that a $5 debt would subtract more from $1000 than from a $100. You get $995 and $95, respectively. You *don't* shift the grand by more or less than the $5.

    20. Re:Another force by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1

      The more appropriate way to discuss the cause of this difference is Gravitational Time Dilation, which is "the effect of time passing at different rates in regions of different gravitational potential; the higher the local distortion of space-time due to gravity, the slower time passes". Thus the frequency changes due to the change in time rate. The time rate change is just a matter of the differences in potential, so the time rate change would be the same for blue light as for yellow light, or for human beings, for that matter.

      We can measure this time dilation using atomic clocks and changes in potential of Earth's gravity well. We can also bounce signals off of Venus that pass close to the Sun, where we see a delay in the signal resulting from the different time rates of the regions the signal must pass through. "The effect is significant enough that the Global Positioning System needs to correct for its effect on clocks aboard artificial satellites, providing a further experimental confirmation of the effect."

  13. Pedantry! by M-RES · · Score: 0

    For craft that pursue a more unsymmetrical path, the effect is larger.

    Shouldn't that be 'asymmetrical'? tsk tsk... the state of our modern education system eh? ;)

  14. The Earth is not a perfect sphere by JustBen · · Score: 1

    The satalites are attracted to the earths gravity. The fact that it is speeding up when there is an unsymmetrical path could explained by the earth being more dense in certain areas than others.

    --
    Buy my shit at http://www.cellup.com
    1. Re:The Earth is not a perfect sphere by Deadstick · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ...but those variations have been quantified with exquisite precision by half a century of satellite tracking. I'm guessing it has something to do with motion of molten metal in the earth's core, only now beginning to show up because it's a long-term effect.

      rj

    2. Re:The Earth is not a perfect sphere by Magada · · Score: 1

      Yes, but that effect is already known. Maybe something massive fell into the Sun.

      --
      Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
    3. Re:The Earth is not a perfect sphere by glutenenvy · · Score: 1

      Earthspots. Why should the sun have all the fun?

  15. Re:I should work for NASA, the answer is obvious.. by sm62704 · · Score: 1

    This is ALIENS messing with us as a cosmic joke....

    As a cyborg who knows at least one alien I can tell you with near certainty that it's not the aliens. However, it is almost certainly dork matter.

    Oh yeah, I almost forgot- RESISTANCE IS FUTILE! YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED!

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  16. And... by djupedal · · Score: 3, Informative

    Number 857 #2, February 28, 2008 by Phil Schewe

    More Spacecraft Velocity Anomalies

            A new look at the trajectories for various spacecraft as they fly past the Earth finds in each case a tiny amount of surplus velocity. For craft that pursue a path mostly symmetrical with respect to the equator, the effect is minimal. For craft that pursue a more unsymmetrical path, the effect is larger. In the case of the NEAR asteroid rendevous craft (), for instance, the velocity anomaly amounts to 13 mm/sec. Although this is only one-millionth of the total velocity, the precision of the velocity measurements, carried out by looking at the Doppler shift in radio waves bounced off the craft, is 0.1 mm/sec, and this suggests that the anomaly represents a real effect, one needing an explanation.

            Some ten years ago another anomaly was identified for the Pioneer 10 spacecraft (see http://www.aip.org/pnu/1998/split/pnu391-1.htm) and a certain amount of controversy has clung to the subject since then. One of the researchers on that earlier measurement is part of the new study, conducted by Jet Propulsion Lab scientists. John D. Anderson (jdandy@earthlink.net, 626-449-0102) says that the JPL scientists are now working with German colleagues to search for possible velocity anomalies in the recent flyby of the Rosetta spacecraft. (Anderson et al., Physical Review Letters, upcoming article; designated as an editor's suggested articlePhysical Review Letters)

    1. Re:And... by Bloodoflethe · · Score: 1
      --
      "Little is much when little you need."
    2. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This article is a dupe.

  17. not grammar, vocabulary by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 1

    Though it probably depends on your definition of the term grammar.

    1. Re:not grammar, vocabulary by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1

      ...and even more so on what you mean by "definition".

  18. Well that's where we stand. by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

    We might find an explanation for this anomaly, or it could not be an anomaly. Laws of nature might be changing from time to time, and even if we have looked into the past till the first seconds before the big bang and even if we were correct in our interpretation there is no guarantee that laws can't change starting here and now. Limit reached when guys study the system they're part of.

    --
    ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
  19. I know what it is! by kiick · · Score: 5, Funny

    Once you leave Earth for a while, particularly if you travel far, you realize that it doesn't suck quite as much as you thought.

    A similar phenomenon occurs when traveling outside of the U.S.

    1. Re:I know what it is! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A similar phenomenon occurs when traveling outside of the U.S.

      I've always found the reverse to be true. I have far more complaints when returning home than I had when I left. Of course, this depends a lot on destination - visiting Turkey inspires far more complaints about home compared to, say, Egypt.

  20. six-month old news that is solved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Nasa & JPL determined in late October that the extra push pressure is from slight low energy gamma radiation from the core of our galaxy being red-shifted by going "uphill" (yeah, I know bad rubber-sheet analogy) out of the gravity well of the entire milky way. The spiral rotation factor of the spiral (once every 55 million years), though slight, is conjectured to impart further pressure of about 2.8 mm/sec.

    It isn't noticable closer in because the heliopause outweights everything else. Only when you get closer to the outside of our solar system's bubble, does it become noticable.

    1. Re:six-month old news that is solved by dgoodell · · Score: 1

      Can you provide a link to the paper? I can't seem to find it.

  21. Link: Explanation with physics equations included by ergon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Here is an interesting explanation for it by a PhD. with the following credentials:

    Beginning in 1979 he worked for Sandia National Laboratories (New Mexico) in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed-power research, and theoretical atomic and nuclear physics. In 1985, he began working with Sandia's 'Particle Beam Fusion Project', and was co-inventor of special laser-triggered 'Rimfire' high-voltage switches, now coming into wider use.

    The last few years at Sandia had seen greater emphasis on theoretical nuclear physics and radiation hydrodynamics in an effort to help produce the world's first lab-scale thermonuclear fusion. Besides gaining another U.S. patent, Dr Humphreys has been given two awards from Sandia, including an Award for Excellence for contributions to light ion-fusion target theory.

    Here's his explanation: ( Includes physics equations. )

    http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_2/j21_2_61-70.pdf

  22. Standard vs. Metric by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 1

    Apparently god only had "inches" rulers handy when creating the universe, wouldn't ya know it!

    --
    stuff |
  23. Yet Another Randome Explanation by Omnifarious · · Score: 1

    They're using the doppler effect to measure. Maybe they should try some other measurement techniques as well to see if they all match up. It might be a measurement error of some sort.

  24. Awesome precision by DancesWithBlowTorch · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm amazed that they can apparently measure the speed of spacecraft that's millions of kilometers away, to a precision of 10e-4 m/s. How do they do this? I imagine it must be some sort of interferometry. Still, awesome. If only cruise control (with automatic distance control) was this accurate. :-)

    1. Re:Awesome precision by pnewhook · · Score: 2, Funny

      Even if you had hyperaccurate cruise control, you'll still get some jackass yammering on a cellphone cutting you off or slamming into you.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    2. Re:Awesome precision by Detritus · · Score: 5, Informative

      The range isn't an issue, it's how accurately they can measure doppler. The standard technique is to transmit a special signal to the spacecraft, which retransmits it to the Earth, like an RF mirror. This allows them to use extremely stable ground-based oscillators, like Hydrogen masers. This signal can also be modulated with a PN code to allow precise range measurements.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    3. Re:Awesome precision by Bloodoflethe · · Score: 1

      Mod this guy up some more!

      --
      "Little is much when little you need."
    4. Re:Awesome precision by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      What about the angle between the spacecraft's trajectory and the radio signal? The doppler shift only measures the directly-away-from-ground-station component of the spacecraft's velocity. They'd also have to know the perpindicular component, or at least the angle between the two, wouldn't they?

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    5. Re:Awesome precision by gharris · · Score: 1

      An article on Space.com, explains that the measurements were made "... using radio waves bounced off the craft" as they flew past the Earth. So they weren't really that far away - relatively :-)

    6. Re:Awesome precision by Alsee · · Score: 2, Informative

      What about the angle between the spacecraft's trajectory and the radio signal?

      Ordinary telescope tracking of the the direction to the craft taken months apart can tightly define the shape of the orbit and thus tightly define the current direction the craft is going within a fraction of a degree. If you know the craft's trajectory then you know the angle between that and the line-of-sight path to earth, and basic trig will easily convert the line-of-sight velocity figure into the forwards velocity.

      The small uncertainty in the precise direction of the craft's travel may indeed be a significant factor for the final +/- 0.1 mm/sec uncertainty in the measurement.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    7. Re:Awesome precision by tbischel · · Score: 1

      Is there any possibility that degradation the retransmission circuitry on the spacecraft could be causing a slight frequency shift?

    8. Re:Awesome precision by Detritus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Normally, the ground station collects data on range, range rate (doppler), and where the antenna is pointing. The antenna has shaft encoders that give high-resolution measurements of the direction it's pointing in. With some complicated mathematics, this data can be used to figure out the exact position and velocity of the spacecraft. To get a more accurate measurement, data from multiple ground stations around the world is collected and processed. In addition, you already have at least a rough idea of the spacecraft's position and velocity, which was used to point the ground antenna in the right direction, so you aren't starting from scratch.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    9. Re:Awesome precision by tenco · · Score: 1

      What about the angle between the spacecraft's trajectory and the radio signal? Since they measure spacecraft which pass by earth, you have a point in the spacecrafts trajectory where it's distance is at a minimum to earth. The spacecrafts doppler shift is at a minimum there, too. This minimum should consist only of the transversal doppler shift which you could use to determine the spacecrafts velocity.
    10. Re:Awesome precision by Detritus · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't think so. The spacecraft transmitter's frequency is phase locked to the frequency of the signal received from the ground station. Since it can't transmit on the same frequency as the ground station, there's a circuit in the spacecraft's RF system that takes the incoming signal and multiplies it by a constant to produce the outgoing signal. So it may be receiving at 2.2 GHz and transmitting at 2.0 GHz. That's 20 cycles out for every 22 cycles in. The incoming signal is used as a frequency reference for generating the outgoing signal.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    11. Re:Awesome precision by beckerist · · Score: 1

      Basically a high-tech ping with a lot more math involved...

    12. Re:Awesome precision by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Because the anomaly seems to be related to the orbital plane or the solar equator, I can't help but to think it's relativistic, some sort of the sun's gravity well time/space curvature is influenced the angular momentum of the sun's rotation and/or the planetary orbits or maybe some kind of frame-dragging, but I'm not an astrophysicist.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    13. Re:Awesome precision by nschubach · · Score: 1

      You forgot to mention that he'd be honking his horn and calling you all kinds of racist names because you got in his way.

      Honestly though there is all this talk about automated cruise control and driver-less vehicles, but nobody is going to get behind one until every single vehicle on the road is out of the control of humans. This is why I think Star Trek/Star Wars/Firefly/et al still have pilots. If/when we get to space, we'll have trajectory maps for every single flight pre-mapped by the computers in milliseconds by then. All you would need was someone to watch for flying debris (though, I'd argue that, by then, a computer could track better) and give it a destination.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    14. Re:Awesome precision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      In space, no one can hear your road rage.

    15. Re:Awesome precision by coastwalker · · Score: 1

      Can anyone explain why the solar system is a pancake or that galaxies end up in disks?

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
    16. Re:Awesome precision by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

      I'm amazed that they can apparently measure the speed of spacecraft that's millions of kilometers away, to a precision of 10e-4 m/s. How do they do this?
      They're very good at holding their breath while measuring.
    17. Re:Awesome precision by owndao · · Score: 1

      Sounds like it might be caused by a measurement method flaw like not taking into account that doppler shifts are not exactly complimentary for the outgoing and returning signal due to asymmetry in special relativistic effects of the earth's gravity well. Outgoing and returning relativistic doppler shift may not be the same (or modeled incorrectly) for non-circular paths. This could cause the predicted relativistic frequency shifts to not be complimentary and thus canceling one another. Any thoughts? Anyone know if these effects are even of the same magnitude as the error seen? Just a guess. ;)

      --
      Be as you would have the world become.
    18. Re:Awesome precision by bentcd · · Score: 1

      Can anyone explain why the solar system is a pancake or that galaxies end up in disks? Angular momentum causes the formation of an accretion disc (aka pancake) from which the orbiting bodies form.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_disc
      --
      sigs are hazardous to your health
  25. Doppler Shift by DamienRBlack · · Score: 0

    Couldn't this just be an error in our calculations of Doppler shift? You know -that- could explain a lot. Maybe our magnetic field or some other nonsense has an effect on it. I hesitate to bring the point up though, since screaming that errors in Doppler shift give rise to the idea of Dark Matter/Energy seems similar to creationist screaming that errors in carbon dating give rise to the idea of evolution.

    1. Re:Doppler Shift by John+Miles · · Score: 1

      I doubt the Doppler calculations are off, but those calculations are entirely dependent on the onboard timebase standards. If the probe is moving, say, 10 km/sec relative to Earth, then the stated measurement accuracy of 0.1 mm/sec requires 1E-8 precision. The best quartz oscillators are good for about that much drift per year, but that's on Earth, at 1g and STP. Maybe the master clocks are behaving anomalously after a decade in space. I'd be more inclined to suspect an unknown quartz aging phenomenon than a change in some fundamental physical constant.

      Didn't RTFA yet, but maybe some of the probes have rubidium standards onboard. If two different timekeeping technologies show a similar error, that would be a lot more interesting...

      --
      Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
    2. Re:Doppler Shift by DamienRBlack · · Score: 0

      That is a good point. I didn't RTFA either (of course), but if they are using onboard times, then we also get into the relativity issue. At 1E-8 precision, surely their speed / gravitational effects are coming into play. Maybe we're wrong about those calculation. Wow I don't make any sense. I'm like this physics equivalent of a conspiracy theorist.

    3. Re:Doppler Shift by budgenator · · Score: 1

      they use an Earth-based hydrogen maser for the clock and the spacecraft receives and retransmitts it back to Earth

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  26. precision, not accuracy by rangek · · Score: 5, Informative

    The precision of the measurements is 0.1 mm/sec, not the accuracy. Those are different things.

    1. Re:precision, not accuracy by frogzilla · · Score: 1

      Excellent.

      Thank you.

    2. Re:precision, not accuracy by TFoo · · Score: 1

      It might be more useful if you actually explained WHY they were different.

    3. Re:precision, not accuracy by rangek · · Score: 2, Funny

      It might be more useful if you actually explained WHY they were different.

      This is true, but we are all so busy I figured interested parties would look for themselves.

      The short version is while the measurements may be very precise, they could be completely f'ing wrong.

    4. Re:precision, not accuracy by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      For those unfamiliar:

      Precise (but not accurate) directions on how to get to the moon:
      Starting from where you are right now, drive 3.46987 kilometers northeast. Make a 46.3219 degree turn to your right, and then drive for another 4.92306 kilometers.

      Accurate (but not precise) directions on how to get to the moon:
      Go up towards the big thingy in the sky that causes tides.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    5. Re:precision, not accuracy by internic · · Score: 1

      It's simple to include a link. It's sort of the point of posting in hypertext. If you had time to post in the first place, then I'm sure you had the 5 extra seconds it would have taken to add a link.

      --
      "You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
    6. Re:precision, not accuracy by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      It saddens me a little that such basic gradeschool science education is so easily forgotten...

    7. Re:precision, not accuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It might be more useful if you actually explained WHY they were different.

      If I tell you it's 2008 that's accurate. If I tell you it's February 24th, 2008 that's more precise, but less accurate.

    8. Re:precision, not accuracy by norton_I · · Score: 1

      That is a good point not mentioned in the article.

      While I assume that the scientists involved have done their homework, this relies not just on the precision of velocity measurement, but on the accuracy of the calculations of the expected velocity. Some forms of systematic error would likely be constant between multiple spacecraft, such as imprecise knowledge of the mass distribution of earth.

  27. That's silly by LittleGuy · · Score: 1

    Someone once said: The most profound scientific discoveries never begin with EUREKA! Usually they start with the words "now that's odd..."

    Why would Sci-Fi Channel name a series "Now That's Odd"?

    --
    Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
  28. Earth based variations? by Tired+and+Emotional · · Score: 1
    The statement that the effect is less for symmetrical about the equator flybys and greater for asymmetrical ones suggests some systematic error in the measurements.

    They are talking an descrepency of 1 part on 10^6. As they say its absolute value is 1.3x10^-2 that means the relative velocity is 1.3x10^4. So boost (which is down around 10^-10) is not a factor.

    --
    Squirrel!
  29. A couple of years ago... by Peter+(Professor)+Fo · · Score: 1
    In February 2006 a chap names Alexander Meyer published a couple of lectures on the Stanford University web site but these were soon sat on by the authorities. It was on /. here: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/05/006254

    I had the nous to download them before they went dark. Anyone know what the eventual outcome was?

  30. The specialization of knowledge... by Kagura · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sadly, none of us can probably make a useful suggestion on this topic (one that would have eluded all the physicists that have been working on this). Unless the next Einstein is reading Slashdot,we can only make narrow conjectures. How many of us have the knowledge and data required? We might as well try to diagnose a medical condition based on a cursory discussion. It's fun to talk about, though.

    1. Re:The specialization of knowledge... by Pollardito · · Score: 1

      Sadly, none of us can probably make a useful suggestion on this topic that never stopped Slashdot readers from trying! actually, there are probably more people on Slashdot qualified to put forth an opinion on this topic than there are on topics related to the legal system, for example any of the daily submissions on the RIAA trials
    2. Re:The specialization of knowledge... by jbeach · · Score: 1

      You know, the opposite can be true, too. Because science is so specialized, it might be that someone outside the narrow range of this particular field of physics may have access to info from another field that resolves it.

      I'm reminded of linguistic scientists who proposed ways to map genetic drift over thousands of generations, by treating DNA as if it was a language.

      --
      The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
    3. Re:The specialization of knowledge... by jd · · Score: 1
      Very very occasionally, mainstream scientists goof up big-time. They make an invalid assumption and ignore solutions that fall outside of that, don't check results correctly, or something along those lines. The tables of results that the Wright Brothers originally worked from were inaccurate, which is why it took them so long to build anything that could fly. Only after they recalculated from experimentation (by building their own wind tunnel) did they succeed. Copernicus and Kepler also made their respective contributions by observing errors between theory and reality, not by any great knowledge or expertise.

      That sort of discovery, however, is (a) exceptionally rare, and (b) almost only ever happens when layman experiments are possible. In this case, we have a very small error - far smaller than can be directly measured by any amateur facility. It is very unlikely an amateur will solve this puzzle through a direct attack like that. The best hope for an amateur to attack this problem is if the models describing the motion of the probes in an N-body system contain a numerical error that has been overlooked somehow.

      What sort of error? Well, since the error has been overlooked, I'd start by looking for a term that has been approximated to make the maths easier. We're probably all familiar with oscillating systems where sin(x) is not equal to x unless x=0, but where the substitution is made anyway. We're also probably all familiar with Hooke's Law, which also linearises a non-linear system, an which also totally breaks down even as an approximation outside a given range. This sort of error is an easy one to miss, because it's an approximation those scientists will be extremely familiar with. Familiarity breeds contempt - in this case, a level of blindness to the fact that it's an approximation at all.

      This is a good place to start because these sorts of error can be extremely small and because non-experts are actually more likely to be able to see it, as they're not so ingrained with particular ways of doing things.

      Is this likely? Not particularly, but it sounds much more likely than an entirely, hitherto unknown, law of physics. It also seems much more likely than exotic particles, aliens or a wash in the fabric of space/time (sofas notwithstanding). And because it is the best bet for armchair science sleuths, it's the obvious thing to target first.

      If that fails? Well, the next-best bet is an extension of the above, that a known force does not operate entirely as predicted by the equations, even if it does operatate entirely as predicted by the model. (eg: if gravity is quantized, then all acceleration/deceleration through gravity must occur in minimum step sizes. The continuous equations used can't work below a certain scale, whatever that might be. It's simpler to work with continuous equations, so we simplify the maths by using those even though we know that they're physically wrong. It's still an error by simplification, but where the errors occur when interpolating rather than extrapolating.)

      Actually, it would be kind of neat if this is a case of quantized gravity, as it would clearly define the parameters of the hypothetical graviton and assist greatly in the search for a grand unified theory. I very much doubt it, but it would be nice.

      Again, though, this is something amateurs can attack. It doesn't require a PhD to identify candidates for potential errors in interpretation of a model. Amateurs may not be able to fix the problem, but even identifying a term that is suspect and could produce the magnitude of error observed would likely be a major step forward. And, again, because scientists may be too close to the problem and because GR physicists tend not to pay much attention to QM (and vice versa) because the two models conflict, it's a problem that being too knowledgeable about may hinder solving it.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    4. Re:The specialization of knowledge... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      The next Einstein probably is reading Slashdot. He sure didn't build the moderation system!

      Your score as I read this is (Score:-1, Insightful)
      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    5. Re:The specialization of knowledge... by Translation+Error · · Score: 1

      Well, I found 48 listed phone numbers for Einsteins in NY alone, and there are probably quite a few more in the world... But you said next Einstein, which implies the person isn't one yet. I think we can safely assume that any soon-to-be Einsteins in the womb are not reading Slashdot at the moment, but that still leaves us with minors old enough to read who will be adopted by an Einstein and women who will marry into the family and take the last name.

      So, I think we can conclude that there are a good handful of people who could meet your condition, but I have to confess I'm not really sure why they'd be so much better suited to comment on the subject...

      --
      When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
    6. Re:The specialization of knowledge... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Your score as I read this is (Score:-1, Insightful)

      That's because a moderation of "overrated" doesn't change the label. If it did the post would be -1, overrated, and then you'd wonder what it was before.

    7. Re:The specialization of knowledge... by Teancum · · Score: 1

      It should be mentioned that sometimes small errors creeping into measurements can also announce a more profound scientific theory that hasn't been fully explored.

      Just as an example, calculations on the orbit of Mercury produced a series of errors that seemed to fall outside of the margin of calculation error in terms of predicting position... especially when observing transit events across the disc of the Sun.

      It turns out that because of the proximity of Mercury to the Sun, you need to take into account the gravity well of the Sun and introduce modifications based upon the time dilation described by Einstein's relativity equations. These have a measurable impact and significantly was one of the first vindications of relativity in terms of a previously unsolved scientific problem that finally had a theoretical explanation.

      In fact, this is something that the physics community is hoping here to discover... if something beyond relativity is playing into celestial mechanics. It seems dubious that it would be, but people thought that of Einstein's equations as well, considering how Einstein modified Newton's equations of celestial mechanics. This is also why this story has "legs" within the Physics community, as the person who comes up with an explanation... either that a calculation was overlooked or a new theory of mechanics can be developed from this discrepency.

      My money would be placed on something overlooked... and that once it is shown to everybody looking at this, that this discrepancy will be dismissed. But at the same time, these probes are at the frontier of human experience, returning data that until now couldn't have ever been gathered, so it could be something completely new that we have never known about before. Whoever solves this issue is going to get some huge recognition, and perhaps a Nobel Prize in Physics depending on what the solution turns out to be.

    8. Re:The specialization of knowledge... by jd · · Score: 1

      Oh, I quite agree. It could be anything from simple error to a whole new level of scientific thought. New realms of science would only really be detectable and correctable by experts in the field (except possibly for some very specific cases where it's a relatively minor adjustment - quantization of a parameter normally taken as being on a wholly continuous realm might be testable by an amateur). If this is a new field of science, or the application of an existing concept (such as QM gravity), then you're looking at a Nobel prize at the least. Too many unknowns.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  31. Frame Dragging? by Elder+Entropist · · Score: 1

    Could it have anything to do with frame dragging? That would explain differences based on symmetry to the equator.

  32. Do you mean Dark Energy? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    Did you mean Dark Energy? That's the one that's the unexplained expansion acceleration in spacetime that we don't understand yet.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  33. I, for one... by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    ... welcome our massive stealth alien observation ship owners overlords

  34. That's quite enough, Titor by dreamchaser · · Score: 2, Funny

    John, yet ANOTHER Slashdot ID??? We told you to stop trolling here!

  35. I'm thinking solar wind by glenmark · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The solar wind output from the sun is anisotropic, and can certainly account for variations in a space probe's velocity. I'm wondering if that was taken into account in their calculations.

    --
    *** Quantum Mechanics: The Dreams of Which Stuff is Made ***
    1. Re:I'm thinking solar wind by bjverzal · · Score: 1

      Actually, this is the same place I went. I'm thinking solar wind. Or maybe it ran out of gas and an interstellar tow-truck is pushing it. All kidding aside, I vote for solar wind. B

  36. Simpler explanation? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2, Informative

    The article has little information about what types of trajectories are affected, so this is just wild guessing. If the orientation of solar panels or dish antennas are markedly different for different trajectories, drag from particles or acceleration from absorbing/reflecting solar radiation can also differ. There's more garbage in the plantary plane, so there's more drag and more blocking of solar radiation.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  37. Alcubierre "warp drive" by lonesome+phreak · · Score: 1

    Your actually thinking of the Alcubierre "warp drive", not Star Trek warp drives. In ST, they use a system that pushes the ship into deeper regions of "subspace", more akin to layers of an onion. The Alcubierre drive makes a stable bubble of spacetime using exotic matter and moves through normal space.

    --
    Maybe we DID take the blue pill. You wouldn't remember anyway.
  38. Re:Link: Explanation with physics equations includ by orclevegam · · Score: 1

    I'm tempted to check this out, but wary of the domain for that site. Can anyone else comment on what the "explanation" offered here actually is, rather then trying to convince us how great a source the guy is and then only linking to the article.

    --
    Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
  39. have you guys mastered by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    the neutrino piston yet? i can't remember which century i'm in. you need a PSI greater than the centers of stars to get the crystallization right

    but i've said enough already, i've totally screwed up this whole timeline with my careless comments, i apologize

    time to dispose of this timeline

    hold for oblivion...

    oh by the way, in 10 years time you do in fact finally achieve your deepest wish for...

    BZZT

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:have you guys mastered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      i've totally screwed up this whole timeline with my careless comments, i apologize time to dispose of this timeline

      What you could do instead is modify this one just enough so that it appears that those comments were just some guy trying to be funny. Give that a try, I think it could work.

  40. Hyper-travels by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who gets this fuzzy warm feeling that it looks like an effect of a SF MacGuffin explaining why, finally, it is possible to travel between stars in less than a year ?

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    1. Re:Hyper-travels by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      At about 1G acceleration you can reach any point in the universe in a few years, your time. This is a consequence of relativity.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  41. you told me WHERE to stop trolling by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    but you didn't tell me WHEN to stop trolling. you never were very good with the whole spatial temporal coordinates. its not my fault you adapt shorthand conversational notation and assume other people know which WHEN you are talking about. when you're dealing with timethreads you can't be as careless as you are, nevermind my carelessness. own up to your carelessness and i'll own up to mine

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:you told me WHERE to stop trolling by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      You were/are/will be correct. I was/am/am going to be careless in calling you out like I did/will.

      Meet me last week for a beer, on me.

  42. correction on Pioneer anomalies chronology by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Pioneer 10 and 11 speed-position anomalies, unaccounted drift, were noticed by the late 70's. NASA and the peole involved just didn't discuss it with the public until much later, after many potential sources of error and theoretical possiblities had been analyzed. That is when I first heard it mentioned, in Houston, ca 1977-78.

    1. Re:correction on Pioneer anomalies chronology by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      The Pioneer 10 and 11 speed-position anomalies, unaccounted drift, were noticed by the late 70's. NASA and the peole involved just didn't discuss it with the public until much later, after many potential sources of error and theoretical possiblities had been analyzed. That is when I first heard it mentioned, in Houston, ca 1977-78.

      One of the earliest theories was that heat radiation from the radioactive power generators were "pushing" the probes, kind of like ion engines. They've since mostly ruled it out, but there are a lot of variables in probe design that muck up such tests.

  43. mm/sec ! wha...! by uss · · Score: 3, Funny
    We've seen this Metric-hogwash replay innumerable times, when dealing with stuff flying around in the heavens.

    If those europeans and europeans-wanna-be stopped using fancy units of measurements, and just plainly used the well-worn all-American "Inches/just-a-sec" for measurements, there would be no anomolies.

    The only mm/sec I know, is the # of m&ms I can pop into my mouth per second.

  44. Global gravity, my shiny metal ass! by frankie · · Score: 4, Funny

    Come on already! How many fatal flaws have to be revealed before "scientists" will admit that the Theory of Gravity is invalid?

    Intelligent Pushing describes this behavior quite easily. It's obvious that GSM would apply more appendage force to non-equatorial motion. Things going in odd directions are simply more fun to play with. Duh!

    I'm surprised the electric universe otaku haven't jumped in to claim credit for this yet.

    1. Re:Global gravity, my shiny metal ass! by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 3, Funny

      Phooey. This clearly proves existence of the ether, a theory I've supported since I was a child in grade school, 108 years ago. Michelson-Morley my ass. And Xenu particles can travel faster than light, too. Modern physics is all invalid. I shall prove you all wrong with my free energy machine, controlled by Windows Vista, Crackpot Edition.

    2. Re:Global gravity, my shiny metal ass! by AaronW · · Score: 1

      Well, they already have this dark energy and acceleration of the universe. I attended a talk on this last Sunday and the evidence for this is pretty strong now from multiple sources.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    3. Re:Global gravity, my shiny metal ass! by SteveWoz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The scientists have already admitted such, to some extent at least. It would help if we had any sort of clue as to 'what' gravity is. There is active research to determine the rate of propogation of gravity. If it were at the speed of light, the earth's orbit would double every 1800 years. With quasar-assisted measurements, the best estimate now is that gravity propagates at 20 billion (2 times 10 to the 10th) the speed of light. Our concept of gravity was taught as being instantaneous, and this speed is far from infinite. And if electromagnetic radiation and mass doesn't often exceed the speed of light, this gravity stuff is something very unknown.

      --
      OK a new size TV
    4. Re:Global gravity, my shiny metal ass! by eclectic4 · · Score: 1

      "It's obvious that FSM would apply more noodly appendage force to non-equatorial motion.

      Sorry, had to fix that.

      --

      "The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
    5. Re:Global gravity, my shiny metal ass! by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised the electric universe otaku haven't jumped in to claim credit for this yet.

      I've moved on to better things now. Phase 1 of my research is done, and I'm now bringing together all of the work I've done into a series of papers. The point of my immersion here was to understand how people here attempt to understand complicated issues (mainly in the space sciences), and how they act towards novel scientific paradigms. This is called "investigative journalism". It's increasingly a very rare phenomenon these days -- especially in the sciences -- so it's understandable if you've never heard of it. In my own personal opinion, the world would be a far better place if there were more people like myself who actually dug into issues related to the space sciences sufficient to penetrate the superficial appearance of things. In my view, science is not a spectator's sport. We *must* get our hands dirty and get down to business through argumentation in order to understand the cultural context for our scientific beliefs.

      This new phase of my research will involve writing up multi-disciplinary papers based upon the research I've done to date. I have plenty of access to scientists, so all of my work will be vetted. I'm very satisfied with the progress that I've been making so far in this regard, and I hope that the people here on Slashdot did not get so annoyed by my presence that they won't consider reading the results of my research. Some of you guys will be surprised to see your own arguments in these papers. And I can tell you right now that it's not all that hard to demonstrate that pseudo-skepticism is endemic on this forum and in American culture in general. I've found at least one genius listed on www.crank.net, and nobody appears to realize it, or care. By performing an in-depth case study of this particular man, I will demonstrate beyond any doubt that the philosophy science predominant here (pseudo-skepticism) is faulty. The idea that we may be culturally blacklisting geniuses *hopefully* disturbs you somewhat.

      This second phase though is still just temporary. The culmination of my investigations and immersions into these papers merely represents a starting point for the remainder of my work. My approach is ultimately a systemic approach to understanding some of the most perplexing issues in science today, and it would be foolish to put all of this work into *understanding* these issues without eventually getting my hands dirty and eventually participating in them in some manner. And it's at this point, much further down the road, where the true rewards of my systemic approach will bear fruit in the form of a laboratory. The process of interviewing people listed on crank.net will assist with identifying the people who should run the laboratory. The ultimate irony of the situation is that the blacklist that you guys refer to for exemplifying your philosophical approach will serve as our starting point for identifying talent.

      For me, philosophy of science cannot be separated from the science itself. And in my own personal opinion, those who believe that peer review is a perfect institution do not really understand what philosophy of science really is. The inferential step does not become perfect just because a bunch of people agree upon it. The cultural context within which science exists is *incredibly* important to the health of science itself. I'm not interested in debating these points at this time. The time for two-way conversation is over, and now it's my turn for some monologue, to explain what I've discovered in these papers that I'm writing up.

      I'm working my way to the same level of knowledge and understanding of science as everybody else here, but I'm being far more philosophically rigorous in my approach than the traditional scientific education. The standard methodology involves memorizing a lot of facts deemed to be the scientific consensus, and every once in a while throwing in some philosophy of science here

      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    6. Re:Global gravity, my shiny metal ass! by jnana · · Score: 1

      I think the correct name for the theory is "Intelligent Falling":

    7. Re:Global gravity, my shiny metal ass! by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Ah! So that's what the "CE" in Windows CE stands for! Thanks, I was wondering about that.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    8. Re:Global gravity, my shiny metal ass! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er, no ... that's a misunderstanding of General Relativity, found originally on a website by Tom vanFlandern (I think).

      A consistent, rigorous analysis of this can be found on the net, but it's hard to track down, and so is little known outside grad (physics) student circles (and above).

      If you're interested in reading an explanation of this misunderstanding, please say so, and I (or some other AC) will try to find you a link.

  45. Re:Link: Explanation with physics equations includ by matthewncohen · · Score: 2, Funny

    Who cares if it starts with the assumption that the universe is only 6000 years old? It has real physics equations.

  46. Re:Link: Explanation with physics equations includ by ergon · · Score: 5, Funny

    Here is the summary from the article:

    If a large volume of empty space surrounds the matter of the cosmos, so that the cosmos can have a centre of mass, then the matter is in a deep gravitational potential 'well'. If space is expanding and spreading the matter outward, then the depth of the well is decreasing. According to general relativity, especially a new solution of Einstein's equations derived in the Appendix (which also deals with Birkhoff's theorem), the decreasing depth continuously shortens 'radar' distances within the well, causing the observed apparent acceleration. The magnitude of the anomalous acceleration implies the bottom of the potential well has not yet risen very far above the critical depth for gravitational time dilation. Thus the Pioneer effect supports the essentials of several creationist cosmologies: a centre of mass, expansion of space and recent time dilation. Big bang theorists, whose cosmology does not have a centre of mass, cannot use this explanation.

  47. thank you for the honesty, and now mine: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    this is what, the 3rd time line i will screw/ am screwing/ screwed up? i will apologize/ am apologizing/ apologized

    please don't report this to the arbitrator, i don't need yet another resubstantiation this epoch

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:thank you for the honesty, and now mine: by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1

      Since you guys seem to be able to manipulate time, can you give me back the 2 minutes I just spent reading this conversation?

    2. Re:thank you for the honesty, and now mine: by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1

      Already will/did. But then/now you've used those two lost minutes re-over, and did the same thing, forming a never-ending loop. Thanks, buddy. Now there is no way out of this conversation.

  48. Re:Link: Explanation with physics equations includ by ergon · · Score: 2, Funny

    Would you prefer crayon drawings?

  49. Re:I Don't Need a Python or C++ Developer by Omnifarious · · Score: 1

    Oh, no! I accidentally added an 'e' onto the end of a word! Obviously this means I have no clue how to spell it properly.

  50. I suspect calc err, but not Doppler Shift by MickLinux · · Score: 2, Informative

    Just what I'm aware of: the standard formulae for predicting the positions of planets are not very accurate.

    This is due to the fact that the differential equation problem for an n-body problem is extremely difficult to get right. That said, there is another, newer method called the Parker-Sochacki solution to the Picard iteration(about 10 yrs old) that develops MacLauren series solutions to the N-body problems.

    But if you plug the numbers into that solution, you still find that fairly significant error develops. That said, there error is a lot less. And what there is, problem comes from the many asteroids and planetoids that surround our Sun, as well as from nearby Oort clouds and whatnot.

    Well, I wouldn't expect to find this type of an error -- velocity changes (as compared to what you expected) as you leave the equatorial plane -- coming from the nearby oort clouds. However, I would expect this kind of an error to result from both (1) using the older N-body approximations, and (2) the asteroids that are within the solar equatorial plane.

    My guess -- if you look at the calculation methods used, they didn't use the PS method. And if you then use the error in planetary predictions under PS, to guess at the mass of in-plane asteroidal matter, you might find an additional reduction in error.

    --
    Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
    1. Re:I suspect calc err, but not Doppler Shift by mikeee · · Score: 1

      But this isn't an N-body problem, it's a 1-body problem. They can look at the actual ex-post-facto positions of the planets, and ignore the satellite's gravitational pull on them.

      Of course, now you might need hyper-precise measurements of planetary position, but at least the N-body mess is out of the way.

  51. I heard it was too large an anomaly by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Dark matter affects appear over galacatic scales, not AUs. Thats a million times larger.

  52. Orbits by Toonol · · Score: 1

    I'm inclined to think this is something mundane... unaccounted for mass, systematic measuring flaws, something like that.

    But if it is something exotic... the fact that it seems to show up on elliptical orbits suggests that it has to do with an object repeated going up and down the sides of a gravity well. Maybe space/time isn't the only thing curved by gravity?

    Also, I wonder how the velocity change is distributed through the orbit? Depending on timing, it could tend to bring all eccentric orbits into a more nearly circular path. If this really is a new, universal, force, that could have big cosmological implications.

  53. Time is not linear by Anonymous+Admin · · Score: 1

    It is not the speed that is changing. It is the time reference. Time stretched with the expansion of space, and that expansion is not linear, so neither is time.

  54. Frame Dragging Effect..... by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

    Sounds like it could be related to the frame dragging effect, especially the whole "equator difference in velocity flyby"

    Near the equator bad! Near the Pole = Better velocity boost.

    Look at active black holes, they shoot jets out at the poles, but near the equator they suck matter into themselves, isn't the effect the same as near a Black hole just on a smaller/larger scale?

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
    1. Re:Frame Dragging Effect..... by Ken_g6 · · Score: 1

      Frame dragging would have more effect (accelerating or decelerating) at the equator than at the poles, which is the reverse of what we see in TFA.

      I did a little black hole research, and it appears that the jets come from magnetic fields, not from frame dragging. But the full cause remains unclear, so you might be half-right.

      --
      (T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
    2. Re:Frame Dragging Effect..... by lazy+genes · · Score: 1

      I wonder if the jets are perpendicular to the nearest gallexy.

  55. Frame dragging by SleptThroughClass · · Score: 1

    If you were a physicist, you'd know that gravity does cause frame dragging around the Earth, where time runs at a different speed. But this has been measured before and whoever is measuring these satellites should be aware of frame dragging and included it in their calculations. I don't know what the effects are of a path which crosses the direction of frame rotation, but as the GPS constellation is affected they probably figured out the time effects a while ago (and probably their velocity effects also).

  56. Actually, Michelson-Morely were wrong... by rndmtim · · Score: 1

    ..and it's just the aether. And there's nothing more irresponsible than a spacecraft in the depths of an aether binge, and I knew we'd be getting into that rotten stuff soon.

  57. In other words.. by batquux · · Score: 1

    "We apologize for the inconvenience."

    1. Re:In other words.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well done, sir! :)

  58. Re:I Don't Need a Python or C++ Developer by Bloodoflethe · · Score: 1

    ardnmo

    --
    "Little is much when little you need."
  59. has the sun got fatter?!?! by gadget+junkie · · Score: 1
    from TFA:

    a small acceleration in the direction of the Sun---8 x 10-8 cm/sec2 for Pioneer 10---remains unaccounted for.
    It goes withour saying that since gravity is a proportional to mass, either the sun got fatter, or some fat dude is hiding behind it without us knowing it, so.....break out the tinfoil hats!!!!


    --
    "If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
    1. Re:has the sun got fatter?!?! by tenco · · Score: 1

      Vulcan...

  60. Re:I for one... by Bloodoflethe · · Score: 1

    "eth"? tsk...

    --
    "Little is much when little you need."
  61. Re:Link: Explanation with physics equations includ by BobTheLawyer · · Score: 1

    Humphreys is a crank, and nobody outside the echo chamber of creationist websites takes this stuff seriously. The wikipedia article on him is fairly hopeless, but a reasonable short summary of the problems with his "theory" is here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE412.html

  62. Re:Link: Explanation with physics equations includ by rthille · · Score: 5, Interesting


    I think it is more of the human ability to interpret vagueness into anything. The genesis description of the origin of the universe lends itself to analogy, which he uses in that paper. Now his physics may be accurate in that the Universe may extend much further than the matter we can detect, and that may explain the velocity anomaly. But to extend that to say that a very vague story from 3000 years ago is a true an accurate description of the universe's origins and that therefore the bible is literally true is just fantasy.

    I've never been a believer. Recently, after reading The Selfish Gene and seeing just how much real evidence there is for evolution and seeing that science really _is_ an accurate and true explanation for how we came to be on the earth. It really does explain away any "need" for any sort of "personal god" as an alternate explanation. So, to give equal time to "the other side", I tried to read the bible. I got thru Genesis, but realized that there really is "nothing there" as far as explanatory power. And certainly to try to extract morals from the old testament would be a mistake. So then I got "Skeptics Answered" and again, there really isn't anything to the arguments of the believers.

    While I'm interested in why people believe, and how we can change that going forward, I've really lost interest in _what_ they believe. It really holds no value as near as I can tell.

    --
    Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
  63. IANAAP by blurryrunner · · Score: 1

    ...but to me it sounds similar to the effect you get when you spin a wheel. You get a force perpendicular to the axis of the wheel. Its like the experiment you did in high school where someone spun a bicycle wheel while standing on a rotatable platform. As they changed the angle of the spinning bicycle wheel it caused the the person on the platform to accelerate their rotational velocity. Maybe the rotation of the earth is some how providing rotational acceleration.

    br/

  64. Heisenberg compensators by OglinTatas · · Score: 2, Funny

    What? They can measure the position AND momentum without changing the phase-shift impulse on their Heisenberg compensators? Don't tell Geordi

  65. Missing explination by Missing_dc · · Score: 1

    Perhaps its the gravitational pull of Nibiru, Stichen's 12th Planet (or planet X). Nibiru is supposed to be in a goofy orbit that gets close to earth every 3600 years, it is due back around 2012, and is supposed to be currently visible from the south pole as a reddish dot that is visible in the day time. The pull from this planet would not have much effect on items moving perpendicular to its approach, but the pull would definitely affect items moving towards it. If Stichen was right about Nibiru, we'll see an increase in its effect on orbital items.

    I don't personally subscribe to theories about Nibiru, but my roommate does and I am willing to discuss almost anything.

    --
    How amazed would you be to suddenly find that you just forgot what I wrote and you needed to reread my post.... again.
  66. no, sorry, can't by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Funny

    but would you like to join the war of 1812? get back to me in the next 5 minutes before this wormhole closes

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:no, sorry, can't by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      Nah, send him to Thermopylae instead. You know the time/spot.

  67. +3 Nitpicking by rant64 · · Score: 1

    What field of science do I have to study for how long to understand that summary?

    1. Re:+3 Nitpicking by Falladir · · Score: 1

      A B.A. in physics did it for me.

    2. Re:+3 Nitpicking by syrinx · · Score: 1

      B.A. in physics? I'm trying to decide if that's weirder than my school giving out a B.S. in music or English.

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
  68. Re:Link: Explanation with physics equations includ by baggins2001 · · Score: 1

    Applying acoms razor to this pretty quickly refutes Humphreys. It's hard to argue with anyone who is willing to start with the assumption that 6000 years ago a higher power just zapped everything into existence.
    I strongly believe that one of the sibblings of a higher power was playing with what they thought was play-do, but was actually something which was more equivalent to C12 dipped in a sump tank and it went off. Thus the big bang. In their realm of time this has just happened and would be equivalent to 1e-7 sec in their time (notice the use of scientific notation). While in our time this has been going on for 1e+100 sec. If you were to apply an exponential gradient from their time to our time at the boundary of the explosion, you would find your time dialation. The lack of application of this time dialation forces to the electrical and gravitational equations is one of the reasons we have have been unable to find a unified calculation of the 2 types of forces.

    --
    He who said 1,000,000 monkeys on 1,000,000 typewriters would eventually type the great novel, never saw an AOL chat room
  69. Re:Link: Explanation with physics equations includ by Alsee · · Score: 1

    Summary:

    The earth is 6000 years old. Ok yeah the rest of the universe is like billions of years old, but the Bible says the earth is 6000 years old, so the earth gotta be 6000 years old and we gotta work the rest of the universe around that. Oh, and the Bible says something about the Waters Above The Heavens too, so we'll put the universe inside the Waters Above The Heavens, and I'll calculate how much it weighs. And if you take every 23rd word from every 23rd page of the Bible... well actually you just get a bunch of random shit that doesn't make any sense. But it's just gotta be in code or something. And when we decrypt it we can finally prove to everyone that God exists. Everyone is born Christian, only later in life do people choose to stray from Jesus and worship satan instead. Atheists have the greatest "cover" of all, they insist they believe in no god yet most polls done and the latest research indicates that they are actually a different sect of Muslims.

    Oh, and I have a patent on something.
    And I work at a really impressive place doing Real Pysics in a completely different field.
    Well, actually I used to work somewhere really cool, but now I got a really neat Associate Professor title working for The Institute for Creation Research and lecturing on behalf of Answers in Genesis.

    I used some real neat math calculating how much the Waters Above The Heavens weigh and other stuff.

    Oh, and I got another patent on something else too.
    I'm like really serious, TWO patents. So don't fuck with me.

    It means I'm not crackpot on this cosmalagogicamalal stuff.

    SOLIER ALERT!
    If you plan on reading the linked PDF and don't want any spoilers, don't scroll down!


    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    The Waters Above The Heavens weigh 8.8 x 10^52 kg.

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  70. Tomorrow is Yesterday by GottliebPins · · Score: 0

    Anyone knows that as you travel away from the sun at warp speed you go back in time so of course there is a discrepency in where the spacecraft should physically be.

  71. Recheck your units by plopez · · Score: 1

    A hogs head is a unit of volume, not length.

    I think you meant to say 1.233EE-10 chains/fortnight (if my conversions are correct)

    HTH, HAND

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  72. they could *rule out* gravity if... by capn_nemo · · Score: 1

    They note that the effect on NEAR 13mm / sec, while the effect on Pioneer is 8x10-8 cm/sec^2. If they had more measurements, they could presumably determine if the effect is "distributed" with proximity to the sun. That is, using your basic F=Gm1m2/r^2, and noting that NEAR is 1au from the sun, and pioneer is 70 au from the sun, you'd expect a ~70^2 decrease in the order of magnitude of the effect on Pioneer vs. NEAR, IF it were gravity (specifically, if the measure of force of gravity is wrong). Which is about the decrease in order of magnitude of the velocity difference. So maybe it *is* gravity. Wait, let me get another beer...

  73. Re:Recheck your units/oops by plopez · · Score: 1

    more like 5.342EE-10 chains per fortnight.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  74. Re:Link: Explanation with physics equations includ by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    read "the case for christ"... then read the critiques of it.

    the combination seems to be locking down my lack of faith despite recent troubling times for me.

    it would be so wonderful to gain faith and basically go insane and be happy the rest of my life because there was an imaginary being out there to take care of me.

    but I just can't do it.

    The only decent argument that didn't feel like a strawman was the "adverse argument" witness. "case" doesn't include any real critics but it feels kinda nice at first- until you read the critiques..

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  75. ob. by The+Anarchist+Avenge · · Score: 2, Funny

    That's no moon...

    --
    Today's lucky number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  76. hyperbolic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to an article on The Planetary Society website the flyby effect is much better established than the Pioneer anomaly, because it's been seen on 3 different spacecraft and has been measured two different ways. But there's also this similarity: all the spacecrafts that have shown anomalies are on a hyperbolic trajectory. This is a very unusual trajectory, but all the Earth flyby missions and the Pioneers are on a hyperbolic path. A clue maybe?

  77. Re:Link: Explanation with physics equations includ by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1

    Physics can be done in crayon just fine, thank you very much! Color coding the variables is quite useful :-) And more fun than anatomy coloring books.

  78. I have the paper, too, if anyone wants it by ansak · · Score: 1
    I have a B.Sc. (Applied Math/Computing Science) degree that included some physics and I once tried to plow through Misner-Thorne-Wheeler's Gravitation (Differential Topology without a tutor while I was also working as a software developer, trying to be a good hubby/dad was tough) which I received one year as a birthday gift from my wife.

    I downloaded the paper and read through it -- with my teenage boys alongside. I think he may be on to something because of the quantity of unexplained and partially explained phenomena he can give a simple explanation for -- it may be wrong, but it sounds simple, feels elegant. I especially liked the idea of getting rid of the "tuning-fork" model of classifying galaxies which seemed arbitrary enough to invoke Ole's Law: wrongness = ugliness * hardness.

    But again, let me emphasize: I don't know enough about the rest of the science behind the classification to give good reasons beyond æsthetic ones regarding why I didn't like it.

    As soon as I saw the title of this subject, it got me thinking about Mayer's paper. I'm sorry to see the thing has gotten shut down this hard. The chain of events that led to him losing his (visible) guest access shows that his ideas struck a lot of our truth-sense nerves as being on. It'll be interesting to see if his notions are borne out in the end.

    to truth...ank

    --
    Still hoping for Gentle Treatment...
    1. Re:I have the paper, too, if anyone wants it by coastwalker · · Score: 1

      I have a BSc too but... That Gravitation book is great, trouble is I put it down in 1990 to learn tensor calculus (should be a piece of cake right? after solving second order partial differential equations) but I never quite finished that either. At least reading it doesn't seem to have given you the ability to guess the answer to the 13mm too quick space craft. I guess those 1279 pages weren't the answer to life the universe and everything after all.

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
  79. What if space isn't homogeneous? by syukton · · Score: 1

    I didn't see any discussion about this in the comments I read, but I think an interesting idea to consider is that space may well not be homogeneous. I mean, the distribution of matter within space is not homogeneous, so why do we assume that space itself is homogeneous? I don't think we have the instruments or theories to cover this sort of situation, but I think it's an idea worth considering.

    A similar issue is that everything is moving away from everything else, which would seem to indicate to me that the fabric of space is itself expanding. Kind of like when you draw something (matter) on a balloon (space) and then inflate the balloon. However, some balloons aren't manufactured well (not that I'm saying the universe was "manufactured") and they will inflate unevenly. Some inflate as ovals, some as long tubes, others in wacky shapes. What's to say that space isn't doing this sort of uneven expansion too?

    We need some way to quantify distance irrespective of space, because if space itself is expanding, then the ruler you use to measure it (which obviously exists in space) is also expanding. I lack proper terminology to say what I'm about to say, so I need you to bear with me. We need the ability to take a snapshot of a given region of space, and determine the density of arbitrary volumes of space within that region. I know, I just said we need to determine the density of emptiness, and that's where I've minced terms. If the expansion rate of each arbitrary region of space isn't homogeneous with respect to the other regions, then some regions should be "less dense" than others. They should, literally, contain more or less space than another arbitrary region.

    So if space isn't homogeneous, then when matter passes from a low density to high density region of space, is the matter recompressed? The analogy here is you have a balloon representing a low density region of space, you draw a little stick figure on it, then while the ink is still wet, you press it on another balloon of equal inflation and then deflate it to symbolize the transition from low to high density space. The stick figure will shrink and become more dense. Another possibility though is that the matter isn't necessarily "anchored" to a given region of space, so the object could pass from the less-dense space into the more-dense space without distortion. The analogy here is that the second balloon is already deflated when you imprint the stick figure upon it.

    I think that something like this could account for the velocity discrepancies. I'm no physicist though, that's just my two cents.

    --
    Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
  80. Re:accuracy, not precision by rangek · · Score: 1

    They are different things, but the summary was correct. The accuracy of the measurement is 0.1 mm/sec.

    You are absolutely 100% wrong. From the article:

    Although this is only one-millionth of the total velocity, the precision of the velocity measurements, carried out by looking at the Doppler shift in radio waves bounced off the craft, is 0.1 mm/sec...

    (Emphasis mine.)

    The rest of what you said is quite wrong also. Maybe not 100% wrong, but pretty close.

  81. Re:Link: Explanation with physics equations includ by Plutonite · · Score: 1

    The 1600's called, they want their "Thus" word back, and they're pissed.

    Also, this is the funniest thing I have read in a long time. Holy didn't-see-that-punchline-coming, batman!

  82. Re:Link: Explanation with physics equations includ by woodycat · · Score: 1

    It is my belief: Never shall religion answer the questions in science and never shall science answer the questions in religion. Faith which is the reason to be for religion is a personal need based on our spirituality which is beyond the mind at this time. Science fills the need to satisfy the intellect and therefore the mind.A person who looks to the bible for answers to the physics of the world will always be disatisfied.

  83. Re:mm/sec ! wha...! by sixtyfour · · Score: 1

    well, 13 mm per second is just about 78 furlongs per fortnight. here, i converted it for you.

  84. It's the poynting vector by recharged95 · · Score: 1

    radiation pressure folks. It's there, it's proven.

    1. Re:It's the poynting vector by coastwalker · · Score: 1

      what about the Unruh effect?

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
  85. Re:Link: Explanation with physics equations includ by rthille · · Score: 1


    What questions are answered by religion?

    I can understand the appeal of the social aspect of going to church, but I see no questions answered by religion. I do see the reinforcement of wish thinking, but no "answers".

    --
    Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
  86. why believe? by reiisi · · Score: 1

    If you don't get past Genesis, then, no, you're not going to get it. Not really.

    The scriptures are not, and should not be sold as, a science textbook.

    They're a collection of recollections and philosophizings of people who believe(d) in God.

    I can't speak for everybody, but I can mention my experience reading some Isaiah quotes in the Book of Mormon. (And skeptics have fun with those, yes, but they're missing the point, still.)

    There's a verse or two in there about men worshipping the creations of their own hands (For instance, Isaiah 2: 20.) and coming to a realization that the things which they have made with there own hands aren't going to save them in the end. I was reading that at about sixteen, while listening to Boston at close to 0 db. (My mom would come in later and told me it was her turn, and I would have to put on something classical, which I am now glad she did. She didn't mind volume if it was good music.) Something about throwing the idols they had made for themselves out of gold and silver to the moles and the bats.

    I had built my own speaker enclosures (mid-fi Radio Snake speaker elements) and had replaced some dirty multi-pole switches with flip-flop driven 0-gain transistor switch circuits of my own design. (West Texas is dusty, and we still had refineries south of town burning off by-product gases and such, which definitely led to quick corrosion in the electro-mechanical parts of cheap "mid-fi" amps, etc.

    I looked up at the works of my own hands, so to speak, on the shelf over my desk, and I thought about what might move me to throw the stereo system into a hole in the ground, and it hit me, something like it hit me when I figured out that 1+1=2 only holds because we restrict it to the cases where the units are of like objects and non-compressible. And the addition operator something like simple aggregation. And the usual assumptions about comparison.

    I've had similar experiences, and those experiences are part of why I believe. The scriptures teach me a truth I need, and then there's nothing to do but accept the truth.

    I have never had any such experience about the theory that the creation was seven 24 hour days. Quite the opposite. I noticed, rather, that the light and the dark don't seem to be divided during the first day and night. I also noticed that the word day is often used for other meanings than a time unit of 24 hours.

    --
    Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
  87. What sorts of gravity model are they using? by SimCash · · Score: 1

    Surely it's not a two-body, 10 body or 3000 body model? Be nifty if someone working the problem would share that insight, even the name of the model would let us (former orbital mechanics types) Google and perhaps understand a bit better what was up. In the meantime maybe f ~ m*mi/r^2 should not be using the old 1+1=2 version of "2". Then try summing that over i=1:20000, heck just try finding a quick list of 20,000 m's.

  88. Isn't it obvious? by whitroth · · Score: 1

    It's the UFO's buzzing them, and pulling them along.

          mark "please, Mr. Spaceman, won't you please take me along..."

  89. Re:until your triumphant return by pln2bz · · Score: 1

    Hey, buddy. I said it's over. Get over it.

    I'm not interested anymore. You guys had your chance to make your case. I know how you feel by now, ya think?

    --
    "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
  90. Little Did We Suspect by dsmall · · Score: 1

    Looks like it was universal warming, not just global warming.

    How could we have known that broadcasting rock'n'roll out into space would heat everything up? Now space and time have stretched, Jupiter and Saturn are going to turn into stars, real estate on Mars has quadrupled in price and its triggered a crisis on "Earth-based-mortgages".

    Truly amazing, but nothing compared to an average day at SCO court.

    Cheers!

    Dave

  91. Thermal Radiation ? by yellowalienbaby · · Score: 1

    How about, although I'm not sure how it fits with the symmetric/asymettric orbit thing, more velocity = extra energy from somewhere. Sun heats it up on one side = extra energy. That energy radiates away from that side. Is at at all possible that could speed something up?? I have no real clue..

    --
    Darwin Hawking Blackmore